A few years ago a serious analysis of the foundations of thermodynamics produced the conclusion that the law of entropy increase is actually a RED HERRING:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics

If such a radical criticism had been published 40-50 years ago, the reaction of the establishment would have ben both energetic and hostile (remember Herbert Dingle's saga for instance). In 2001 there was no reaction, except for a few vague positive(!) references.

A few months ago another serious analysis produced the conclusion that Einstein's relativity is an ideology, not a science:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes: The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox

Again the reaction is silence: no hostility coming from the establishment. The feature of Postscientism (generally, it is a feature of Postmodernism) that explains this state of affairs consists in the fact that official science has adopted ALL possible alternatives and so has become unassailable. Just an example of "radical heresy" advanced by official science that discourages any genuine criticism:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

PV magazine.
============

Physics for the hairdressing salon.

your opinion only, which amounts to ABC gum (all ready been chewed) under the restaurant table.

I know some who like ABC.

Good! Maybe they will swallow your opinion too. It is not palatable here!
That type likes to pick their nose and lick their finger, too. Just your type.

Using PV as post marker again.
_______________________________

Joke:

I know some who like ABC.
By "who", I meant JR.

By "who", I meant


yourself

You should have your own show. You would only need one table in the audience. . . for your mother. You would need a laugh track so she would know when to.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> A few years ago a serious analysis of the foundations of
> thermodynamics produced the conclusion that the law of entropy
> increase is actually a RED HERRING:
>
>http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics
>
> If such a radical criticism had been published 40-50 years ago, the
> reaction of the establishment would have ben both energetic and
> hostile (remember Herbert Dingle's saga for instance). In 2001 there
> was no reaction, except for a few vague positive(!) references.
>
> A few months ago another serious analysis produced the conclusion that
> Einstein's relativity is an ideology, not a science:
>
>http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
> Peter Hayes: The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
> Paradox
>
> Again the reaction is silence: no hostility coming from the
> establishment. The feature of Postscientism (generally, it is a
> feature of Postmodernism) that explains this state of affairs consists
> in the fact that official science has adopted ALL possible
> alternatives and so has become unassailable. Just an example of
> "radical heresy" advanced by official science that discourages any
> genuine criticism:
>
>http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
> Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
> the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
> stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
> the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
> maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
> constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
> Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

Postscientism: Time is an illusion. Time is not an illusion. Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, the source of the confusion, should not be discussed:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june232009/einstein_lessons_dj_6-22-09.php
"For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past, present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious" - Albert Einstein

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004505/
Postscientism: "Results on the observational indistinguishability of spacetimes demonstrate the impossibility of determining by deductive inference which is our spacetime, no matter how extensive a portion of the spacetime is observed."

By deductive inference, one obtains that the 80m long pole can safely be trapped inside the 40m long barn, and that the bug is both dead and alive. These are absurd conclusions suggesting that we do not live in the spacetime consistent with Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c); rather, we live in the space and time consistent with the antithesis of the light postulate (c'=c+v) given by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Increasing entropy is disposed by understanding Halton Arp's observations of ejected QUASARs that expand in quantum jumps into conventional galaxies. Entropy decreases with every one.

Postscientism: There are systems that do violate the second law of thermodynamics (so that chosen "heretics" can make career and money). On the other hand, the second law of thermodynamics cannot be violated (so that the rest of the establishment can sleep well):

http://www.physorg.com/news165065343.html
"Scientists have found that Maxwell's demon, or a creature that can sometimes decrease the entropy of a system without performing work, could exist in nanoscale systems, although it would not violate any physical law....Maxwell's demon may be making a comeback. Physicists know that the demon, an imaginary creature that decreases the entropy of a system, cannot exist in macroscopic systems due to the energy it requires to perform its role. However, a recent study has shown that, on the nanoscale, Maxwell's demon might be able to do its work with much less energy than previously thought due to tiny thermal fluctuations that occur in small systems."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

In the electric universe, reverse entropy either uses immense quantities of energy, which is being supplied from beyond the visible bound of it, or, as in Colin Hill's Fractal Universe, generated within each galaxy.http://www.fractaluniverse.org/

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Postscientism: There are systems that do violate the second law of
> thermodynamics (so that chosen "heretics" can make career and money).
> On the other hand, the second law of thermodynamics cannot be violated
> (so that the rest of the establishment can sleep well):
>
>http://www.physorg.com/news165065343.html
> "Scientists have found that Maxwell's demon, or a creature that can
> sometimes decrease the entropy of a system without performing work,
> could exist in nanoscale systems, although it would not violate any
> physical law....Maxwell's demon may be making a comeback. Physicists
> know that the demon, an imaginary creature that decreases the entropy
> of a system, cannot exist in macroscopic systems due to the energy it
> requires to perform its role. However, a recent study has shown that,
> on the nanoscale, Maxwell's demon might be able to do its work with
> much less energy than previously thought due to tiny thermal
> fluctuations that occur in small systems."

Postscientism: The law of entropy increase holds "the SUPREME POSITION among the laws of Nature". The law of entropy increase is "a RED HERRING". The "scientific community" is happy with both views:

http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the SUPREME POSITION among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in the period 1822 - 1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds'. He is outright cynical about the respect with which nonmathematicians treat the Second Law: "Clausius verbal statement of the second law makes no sense [. . . ]. All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition; a century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean. Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to follow the argument Clausius offers [. . . ] and seven times has it blanked and gravelled me. [. . . ] I cannot explain what I cannot understand." From this anthology it emerges that although many prominent physicists are firmly convinced of, and express admiration for the Second Law, there are also serious complaints, especially from mathematicians, about a lack of clarity and rigour in its formulation. At the very least one can say that the Second Law suffers from an image problem: its alleged eminence and venerability is not perceived by everyone who has been exposed to it. What is it that makes this physical law so obstreperous that every attempt at a clear formulation seems to have failed? Is it just the usual sloppiness of physicists? Or is there a deeper problem? And what exactly is the connection with the arrow of time and irreversibility? Could it be that this is also just based on bluff? Perhaps readers will shrug their shoulders over these questions. Thermodynamics is obsolete; for a better understanding of the problem we should turn to more recent, statistical theories. But even then the questions we are about to study have more than a purely historical importance. The problem of reproducing the Second Law, perhaps in an adapted version, remains one of the toughest, and controversial problems in statistical physics.....This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

JR
=========
Increasing entropy is disposed by understanding Halton Arp's observations of ejected QUASARs that expand in quantum jumps into conventional galaxies. Entropy decreases with every one.

+++++
What exactly are you talking about? That would take millions, no billions of years to convert from an electric galaxy to a conventional galaxy. We would see these transformations in progress. Or we can use Einstein's Tada method.

=========
In the electric universe, reverse entropy either uses immense quantities of energy, which is being supplied from beyond the visible bound of it, or, as in Colin Hill's Fractal Universe, generated within each galaxy.http://www.fractaluniverse.org/

+++++
Wow, How would this work? What are the mechanisms that would take immense quantities of electricity and convert it to baryons. Electricity is a function of the baryon. It is expressed by the Z boson to the electron (electricity)or another atom (plasma). The electron emits the photon.

I just don't see any mechanism for this. Please explain!

Aaron

Aaron, The Sun, and the planets are electrically powered, externally by the plasma conducted electrical currents flowing through our galaxy. This is why all the planets radiate more energy than they absorb from the Sun. This is what generates the magnetic poles. This is why the lower surfaces of the Sun are cooler than the outer layers. This is true with the Earth's atmosphere too.

You need to take time to study the electric universe theory. Try Colon Hill's Fractal Universe:

http://www.fractaluniverse.org/

Look, none of this stuff explains everything. But it explains a lot more than the "gravity only" mainstream religion of the Big Bangers, without all the ad hoc invention of unseen stuff like black holes, dark matter and such.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> A few years ago a serious analysis of the foundations of
> thermodynamics produced the conclusion that the law of entropy
> increase is actually a RED HERRING:
>
>http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics
>
> If such a radical criticism had been published 40-50 years ago, the
> reaction of the establishment would have ben both energetic and
> hostile (remember Herbert Dingle's saga for instance). In 2001 there
> was no reaction, except for a few vague positive(!) references.
>
> A few months ago another serious analysis produced the conclusion that
> Einstein's relativity is an ideology, not a science:
>
>http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
> Peter Hayes: The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
> Paradox
>
> Again the reaction is silence: no hostility coming from the
> establishment. The feature of Postscientism (generally, it is a
> feature of Postmodernism) that explains this state of affairs consists
> in the fact that official science has adopted ALL possible
> alternatives and so has become unassailable. Just an example of
> "radical heresy" advanced by official science that discourages any
> genuine criticism:
>
>http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
> Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
> the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
> stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
> the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
> maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
> constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
> Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

Education in the era of Postscientism: "....the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist."

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS0000690000S1000S24000001
Student understanding of time in special relativity: Simultaneity and reference frames, American Journal of Physics -- July 2001 -- Volume 69, Issue S1, pp. S24-S35
"Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity HARMONIOUSLY co-exist."

In Big Brother's world this would be referred to as "students exercise themselves in doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

See more educational challenges offered by Einstein's 1905 false light postulate here:

http://labnews.co.uk/laboratory_article.php/4514/2/2/attack-on-great-pillar-of-physics

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

"... In 2001 there was no reaction, except for a few vague positive(!) references. ..."

That's mainly the effect of the www.
Noise has increased dramatically.
People have become accustomed to ear anything.

Just do the test.
Create a huge blog claiming in favor of Earth-centrism.
You will get more positive reactions that negative reaction.
Simply because this blog will attract the other fools.
Most people will je discard it without reaction, as they are now used to nonsense.

Nonsense today spread faster thanks to the www.
Discussion here illustrate that very well.

Anon: That's mainly the effect of the www.
Noise has increased dramatically.
People have become accustomed to hear anything.
*****

We can agree on this. But main victim is eventual and plausible alternative to the so-called scientific picture of the world, or to entire backonian paradigm. Repeatable experiment, you know!? Under WHAT conditions can it be repeatable? Stellar configuration cannot be the same for any e.g. quantum or gravity experiment again. Maurice Allais noticed that in his basement.

And when I am talking already, let me say that I am not with "alternatives" as such or against "mainstream" regularly. My concern is the EXISTENCE and, one way or another, the existing civilization is under big question mark from so many reasons. The main one, in my view, is its idea of "science", even idea of "numbers", i.e. the omnipresent quantification of phenomena.

On the positive side, Net connects people in a way as nothing makes it before. So, that connection itself could be a healing factor no matter what we personally believe in.


God help us all.

God bless...

"My concern is the EXISTENCE and, one way or another, the existing civilization is under big question mark from so many reasons. The main one, in my view, is its idea of "science", even idea of "numbers", i.e. the omnipresent quantification of phenomena. "

I tend to be concerned with insufficient quantification.
I am working as an engineer and I am often appalled by beliefs associated with a lack of quantification. Usually the problems involved are far from "big science", actually rather simple. The "believers" are perfectly able to quantify and analyze the problems by themselves, but many reasons prevent them of doing so. Some reasons are:

- the time that is needed
- their preference for action instead of reflexion
- their belief that experience is superior to calculation
- their distrust in theory
- their lack of experience with theoretical thinking
- all these reasons tend to confirm them in their belief

But the main reason is paradoxical: they simply expect too much from a quantitative approach and are not satisfied with the limitations. Yet, it is my experience that there is no alternative to a quantitative approach.